Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1818 (PAT)

Manan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-11-27

SADANAND MUKHERJEE

body2007
Judgment 1. This is an application for initiation of contempt proceeding and awarding suitable punishment to the contemners for their wilful and deliberate disobedience/violation of the order dated 28.7.1998 and 24.12.1998 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 as well as the order dated 6.3.2000 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999. 2. It is submitted that a regular civil suit over the land in dispute has already been decided in favour of the petitioner by the judgment and decree in the year 1959/ 62 passed in Title Suit No. 64/14 and 147/15 appertaining to Khata No. 13 and 14 which were affirmed by the higher court including the High Court. Even after the aforesaid judgment and decree of the High Court, the executive authorities namely, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dumraon repeatedly initiated proceeding under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C, some of the proceedings were subsequently dropped by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate himself as being satisfied by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court or by non-existence of the apprehension of the breach of peace. One such proceeding initiated vide Case No. 1363(M)/99 was quashed by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 29.10.1997 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12481 of 1992 and Cr. Misc. No. 14285 of 1992. It is submitted that executive authorities repeatedly initiated the proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and passing the order of attachment further another proceeding was initiated vide Case No. 168/1998(M) in which an order for attachment of the land was passed, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Cr. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 in which this High Court issued notice to the Opposite Parties and finally be the order dated 24.12.1998 admitted the case for hearing and the order for maintenance of status quo was in force. The aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 is still pending and the contemner/opposite parties have been restrained from taking any action disturbing the status quo of the land. 3. It is submitted that the S.D.O., Dumraon again initiated a proceeding under Sections 145/146(1) Cr.P.C. by his order dated 2.11.1999 vide Case No. 603 of 1999 and ordered for bid to be held on 9.11 1999 for the purpose of the cultivation of the aforesaid land. It is further submitted that one Yogendra Nath Dubey, one of the party of the proceeding filed Cr. Misc. It is further submitted that one Yogendra Nath Dubey, one of the party of the proceeding filed Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 against the order of attachment and proposed bid before this Court and a Bench of this Court by an order dated 5.11.1999 issued notice to the opposite parties and till hearing, stayed the part of the order dated 2.11.1999 by which the auction was to be held by 9.11.1999. It is stated that the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 was admitted by the order dated 6.2.2000 and the operation of the order dated 2.11.1999 was stayed. 4. It is further submitted that Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 is pending for hearing and the order of stay, vide Annexure-3, is still in force and the contemnor S.D.J.M. was restrained from taking any action in respect of the land in question during the pendency of the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous application in view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. It is indicated that Opposite Party No. 2 passed yet another illegal and erroneous order dated 7.11.2002 in utter violation of the aforesaid order passed by this Court and by the order dated 7.11.2002 the Contemnor/Opposite Party No. 2 had made a wrong statement to the effect that this Court had not stayed the order of attachment of the settlement of land by bid. It is further submitted that the contemnor/Opposite Party No. 2 settled the land by auction on 22.11.2002. It is, therefore, indicated that the orders dated 7.11.2002 and the bid dated 22.11.2002 are illegal, erroneous and nonest in the eye of law. 5. It is further submitted that although Opposite Party No.2 was aware of the order passed by this Court wherein and whereunder the settlement of the land by auction was stayed, Opposite Party No. 2 invented a new theory that since the bid was only for one year, the stay order would be operative for one year only. It is stated that the order vide Annexure-5 dated 7.11.2002 in the matter of settlement of land by auction on 22.11.2002 is not only perverse and illegal but also is contemptuous. It is submitted that realising the mistake the auction order was stayed till disposal of Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 vide Annexure-6. However, the auction in respect of Khata Nos. It is submitted that realising the mistake the auction order was stayed till disposal of Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 vide Annexure-6. However, the auction in respect of Khata Nos. 13, 14 and 19 was directed to be held for the next one year, on 16.3.2004 and the highest bidder was allotted to the said land. It is submitted that since there was an order by the Court in Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 vide order dated 6.3.2000, order passed by the S.D.O. on 5.3.2004 amounts to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the direction of this Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the violation of this Courts order by order dated 5.3.2004 for proceeding with the bid auction, make Opposite Party No. 2 liable for contempt. 6. On behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 a counter affidavit has been filed denying the averments of the petitioner stating therein that Cr. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 was dismissed as not pressed by order dated 12.12.2003 and naturally the adinterim orders passed on 28.7.1998 and 24.12.1998 are without force and no grievance could be raised regarding the violation of the aforesaid two orders dated 28.7.1998 and 23.12.1998 and the present proceeding has been vexatious as the same has been raised in the year 2004. It has also been submitted in the counter affidavit that as regards the alleged violation of the order in Cr. Misc. No. 18502 of 1999 by one Yogendra Nath Dubey and not by the contempt petitioner, the proceeding was confined to the lands of Khata No. 24 and part of Khata No. 19. It is also stated that the part of Khata No. 19 as claimed by the contempt petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 was not included in Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 filed by Yogendra Nath Dubey. 7. It is further submitted by the S.D.M. that since vide order dated 12.12.2002 in Cr. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 (Annexure-B) was dismissed, the statements made regarding violation of the aforesaid order on behalf of the petitioner do not hold good. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that S.D.M. commanded the local Circle Officer, Brahmpur to harvest the crops standing on about 6.52 acres of Khata No. 24 and about 15.13 acres of Khata No. 19, covered by Cr. Misc. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that S.D.M. commanded the local Circle Officer, Brahmpur to harvest the crops standing on about 6.52 acres of Khata No. 24 and about 15.13 acres of Khata No. 19, covered by Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999, and the amount received by the same was asked to be deposited in the Sub-Divisional Nazarat. As regards the remaining land, the deponent found that the order in Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 (Annexure-7 to the contempt petition) was still continuing under attachment and, therefore, ordered for issuance of auction notice fixing 16.3.2004 as regards lands not covered by the aforesaid order and thus the auction was held on the said date. It is submitted that the steps taken by the S.D.M. are bona fide and consequential harvesting and deposit of the amount in the Nazarat has not been protested by Yogendra Nath Dubey (petitioner in Cri. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999). The S.D.M. stated that he has not taken any action wilfully and deliberately to violate or overstep or overreach the order and command of this Court. Therefore, prayer has been made to accept the show-cause by the answering Opposite Party and discharge Opposite Party from the rule issued against the Opposite Party and dismiss the prosecution against him. 8. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contempt-petitioner stating therein that since there was no information are sent to the petitioner regarding the order of dismissal of Cri. Misc No. 13582 of 1998 hence it has been stated that in paragraph-8 of the instant application wherein the pendency of Cr. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 has been shown, is an inadvertent error. It is further stated that however, there is repeated violation of the Courts order in respect of the order passed on 6.3.2000 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999. In supplementary affidavit the petitioner mainly concentrated on the order dated 6.3.2000 in Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999. However, in the said Criminal Miscellaneous application this petitioner was not a party and one Yogendra Nath Dubey has not filed any contempt petition. It is submitted that the order passed in Cr. Misc. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999. In supplementary affidavit the petitioner mainly concentrated on the order dated 6.3.2000 in Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999. However, in the said Criminal Miscellaneous application this petitioner was not a party and one Yogendra Nath Dubey has not filed any contempt petition. It is submitted that the order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 is binding on all concerned including the petitioner and contemnor/Opposite Party No. 2 and the order of stay was binding in respect of the entire lands pertaining to all four Khatas of Khata Nos.13, 14, 19 and 24. It is further submitted that the petitioner was ill-advised to take recourse to yet another auction for settlement of land for cultivation by his order as contained in Annexure-1 series to the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that although non-petitioner Yogendra Nath Dubey had not made any protest against the auction cannot absolve him of the contempt of this Court. 9. From perusal of the entire gamut of the counter-affidavit, supplementary affidavit and also the entire reports, it is clear that raising the issue of alleged violation of the order of this Court in respect of Cr. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 which was dismissed on 12.12.2003, is not tenable. It is categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that auctions were conducted in respect of the land not covered in Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 which was initiated by non-petitioner. The present case has been initiated alleging civil contempt. Civil Contempt has been defined in Sec. 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act which is as follows: "2(b) "Civil Contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking to a court." 10. So far as this case is concerned, it has been categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that whatever has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner is relating to contempt in Cr. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 which was dismissed and, therefore, the allegations do not hold good. As regards civil contempt, it is basically a wrong to the person who is entitled to the benefit of the courts order. It is submitted that Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 was filed by a non-petitioner. Misc. No. 13582 of 1998 which was dismissed and, therefore, the allegations do not hold good. As regards civil contempt, it is basically a wrong to the person who is entitled to the benefit of the courts order. It is submitted that Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999 was filed by a non-petitioner. It has been indicated by the respondents concerned that there is no wilful disobedience as S.D.M. has taken care in various orders in respect of the order of this Court and if any mistake has occurred, the same is bona fide. With reference to various orders it is indicated that there can be no wilful disobedience as best efforts have been taken to comply with the order of this Court and not to disobey the Courts order even in the case in which the non-petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 28502 of 1999. It is further indicated on behalf of the S.D.M. that the contempt petitioner has vaguely stated about the initiation of the different proceedings. 11. It appears from the entire submissions that casual or accidental and unintentional acts of disobedience under circumstances negative any suggestion of contumacy. It is settled law that unintentional disobedience amounts to a contempt in theory only and does not render the contemner liable to punishment. It is further settled law that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold one guilty of contempt. 12. Considering the entire gamut of circumstance and contention on behalf of the Opposite Party that there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the opposite parties, the accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience is not sufficient to justify one being held guilty for contempt. Under such circumstances the cause shown by the answering respondents is accepted and the answering respondent/opposite party is discharged from the rule issued against this opposite party. The proceeding is dropped so far as the answering opposite party is concerned.